[winzie]

I can certainly see the entrepreneurial aspect of being a professor -- managing a lab, hiring and firing people, and sourcing funding, and I don't disagree that professors are there to inspire the next generation. However, there is still a part of me that feels professors have that "safety net". Tenured professors are paid a monthly salary by the university, and often times at / above industry (that's true at least in Canada anyways). With a steady income, they have no risk, and the risk factor is a big part of being an entrepreneur.

[fadmmatt]

I was an entrepreneur (failed twice), and I'm now a professor.

Being a pre-tenure professor is way more terrifying than being an entrepreneur was.

And, depending on the field, between 25% and 75% of your salary as a professor will come from being able to procure external funding.

If you can't convince the funding agencies to pay you, then tenure buys you an office, a teaching load and health care.

It's been terrifying for me because my hit rate is about the same as Matt's. I've had very little luck getting funding for my research.

And, at the last funding panel I served on, the funding rate was down to 5%. My own fund-seeking overhead is now at 60% of my time, and I'm still not getting any.

Either we have too many scientists, or not enough science funding. I don't think the current system is sustainable.

[frossie]

Either we have too many scientists, or not enough science funding.

A little bit of both, to which I would add a third: the way we fund science is... I'm going to charitably say "sub-optimal"

[liedra]

And then there's us lot in non-science disciplines who sit back and think "gosh, lucky scientists, they get all the funding..." :)

[_delirium]

It tends to produce a treadmill, though--- since science funding is available, science profs are expected to get it. In some areas with less funding, it's perfectly normal for professors to have their students TA most of the time; but in most science departments, the prof's expected to pay a substantial proportion of their students from grant money, and it'll look bad if a prof is always "dumping students on the department" by funding them through TAships.

And if you're expected to pay your students, it takes a lot of money! One student, including tuition, stipend, and departmental overhead, costs around $50k, so if your lab is 5 students, you have to bring in $250k a year just to support your grad students. And if you start dipping below about $150k, so are supporting fewer than half your students, people will start grumbling, and it'll look bad for your tenure case. (You can't avoid it by having fewer students, either, because having only 2 students will also look bad for your tenure case.)

[tensor]

As others have said, you pay a LOT to get that tenured position. You also risk a lot. Imagine being 32 and just starting a tenure track position. All your friends in industry are already earning nearly 100k and have been earning decent salaries all the while you were in graduate school and post-docs for the past eight years. They already have houses, cars, and other items giving them some form of security. You are maybe in debt, and have very little if not.

Now you get to work for five years to earn your tenure. You work nights, maybe weekends. Your salary is better, but not that much better than your friends got out of university. At the end of the five years, you may be denied tenure. Are you going to give it another shot after that? Another five years?

Also, "and often times at / above industry (that's true at least in Canada anyways)", I do not see this to be true. Especially not for people of similar technical skill who work hard and long hours.

The biggest reason people do not pursue a tenure track position is a distinct lack of a safety net. The above only deals with the monetary aspect of it as well. The social cost is equally high: you never know where you will end up settling down.

[wisty]

On salary, keep in mind that getting tenure is a "tournament" game, just like getting a VP (or CXO) position. You have to work hard, and prove that you are better than all your peers (who are also pretty damn smart, and are also working hard).

The rewards are there (until someone decides that a restructure will get rid of all the deadwood - people who won the tournament then quite rationally began resting on their laurels) but it's not an easy game to play.

[_delirium]

> With a steady income, they have no risk, and the risk factor is a big part of being an entrepreneur.

For first-time entrepreneurs I agree, but there are a lot of "serial entrepreneurs" who sold a company for multi-millions, and are now founding new companies. Millions in the bank definitely seems like a big safety net that insulates you from most real-world risk...